Assault Weapons Ban Before U.S. Supreme Court

[btq96r]

The case isn't going to be heard...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/court-leaves-intact-an-assault-weapon-ban/#more-235622

 

Justices Scalia and Thomas tried, but it takes four justices to make the court hear a case, so presumably Alito and Roberts didn't want to for whatever reasons they have.  Or one of them just didn't want to join the dissent.  Lost opportunity, IMO.

[bersaguy]

I thought last time a gun law was in front of them and they handed down a decision on 2nd Amendment that they said they would not hear anything else on this topic period................. :shrug: :shrug:

[Dolomite_supafly]

But if i am reading it right their refusal to hear it upholds the lower court's decision that the ban on certain weapons is constitutional. Prepare for a massive legislative wave of places banning them now. Just hope Tennessee doesn't but i bet we will within 10 years. Edited December 7, 2015 by Dolomite_supafly

[Moped]

This was not a good thing for us.  Obviously, the Supremes are going to leave it in the hands of local/state governments to decide what is legal to own.  I can a flood of "assault rifle" bans coming down the pike in liberal states, like California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, very, very soon.  They just got the green light.

[Oh Shoot]

This was not a good thing for us.  Obviously, the Supremes are going to leave it in the hands of local/state governments to decide what is legal to own.  I can a flood of "assault rifle" bans coming down the pike in liberal states, like California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, very, very soon.  They just got the green light.

 

CA, CT, NJ, MA, and NY already ban assault weapons.

 

- OS

[C0v3rtV01]

Why all the focus on the court system? The House and Senate can pass/repeal law. If the states simply vote in constitution minded nominees the issue resolves itself.
I say keep it out of court.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

Why all the focus on the court system? The House and Senate can pass/repeal law. If the states simply vote in constitution minded nominees the issue resolves itself.
I say keep it out of court.

 

There is no federal law to repeal to allow any firearms, except NFA ones.

 

Just what would a new federal law look like that would ban the states from outlawing a certain type of firearm? And how could you get it passed?

 

- OS

[btq96r]

But if i am reading it right their refusal to hear it upholds the lower court's decision that the ban on certain weapons is constitutional. Prepare for a massive legislative wave of places banning them now. Just hope Tennessee doesn't but i bet we will within 10 years.

 

As OS mentioned, states that want an AWB more or less have it already since nothing was stopping them before.  This decision simply refused to rule on their constitutionality at the SCOTUS level.

 

A big shift in current states that allow assault weapons would need a push from the public, and I don't see any states that don't already have bans meeting that criteria anytime soon.

[C0v3rtV01]

Keep it at the state level. If the people vote out those who favor gun control for 1-2 cycles two things will happen I think. First, you have all the votes you need to repeal unconstitutional laws(again, at the state level). Second, no one will touch unconstitutional legislation again....for awhile at least.
I think we forget the power of the ballot box.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

[Pete123]

What I don't like is that it gives the anti gunners a home where they can build strength.

 

I worked in an industry in the 90s where the unions wanted to expand.  One of the major fighting points between the unions and my employer was whether they had to unionize the whole company or whether parts could unionize.

 

The unions wanted to be able to go after their goal piecemeal rather than having to turn the whole thing.

 

My concern about this is that relative to 2nd Amendment rights, SCOTUS has just announced that they can go after their goals in a piecemeal fashion.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Pete123

[Moped]

CA, CT, NJ, MA, and NY already ban assault weapons.

 

- OS

Cant you still get neutered ARs in those states?

[Oh Shoot]

Cant you still get neutered ARs in those states?

 

Yes, because then they are no longer "assault weapons". All those states use basically the same basic definitions that were in the original federal AWB, with some additional tweaks here and there. Including certain named models period as in Kali, which I guess you can't even modify to pass muster period or whatever.

 

And of course just like the AWB, not limited to only the AR platform, or even rifles, as "assault pistols" are verboten too.

 

- OS

Edited December 8, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[Moped]

Yes, because then they are no longer "assault weapons". All those states use basically the same basic definitions that were in the original federal AWB, with some additional tweaks here and there. Including certain named models period as in Kali, which I guess you can't even modify to pass muster period or whatever.

And of course just like the AWB, not limited to only the AR platform, or even rifles, as "assault pistols" are verboten too.

- OS

This must be what the media have been calling "assault style" weapons.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

This must be what the media have been calling "assault style" weapons.

 

Whatever. The media calls things whatever they want.

 

Those states have exact definitions for "assault weapons", as did the AWB. And of course, the only reason to need to define them is so they can be banned.

 

- OS

Edited December 8, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[JohnC]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-assault-weapon-20151207-story.html

The Supreme Court gave an apparent green light Monday to lawmakers who want to restrict the sale of guns such as the rapid-fire weapons that have been used in the recent wave of mass shootings from Paris to San Bernardino.

The justices by a 7-2 vote turned down a 2nd Amendment challenge to a local ordinance in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park which banned the sale or possession of semiautomatic guns that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the high court, by refusing to consider a challenge to that law, was "relegating the 2nd Amendment to a second-class right."

The court's decision was not a formal ruling -- the justices simply decided not to consider an appeal by gun-rights advocates. But it strongly suggests the majority of the court does not see the 2nd Amendment as protecting a right to own or carry powerful weapons in public.

"The court’s decision will encourage gun control advocates to push more cities and states to enact assault weapons bans," said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, an expert on gun rights.

"The justices appear anything but eager to enter into the 2nd Amendment fray again," he added. "Perhaps, like many in America, some of the justices are viewing gun control through the lens of the recent mass shootings."

The court's only two previous decisions upholding gun rights struck down city ordinances in Chicago and Washington, D.C., that prohibited residents from keeping a handgun at home for self-defense.

Since then, the justices have repeatedly refused to hear appeals from gun-rights advocates who have sought to extend the 2nd Amendment right beyond handguns at home, to include, for example, carrying weapons in public.

The high court's action comes at a time of renewed public debate and fear over the use of military-style assault weapons in mass shootings in recent weeks.

Advocates of bans on military-style weapons had pointed to mass shootings before this year and argued that rapid-fire rifles and handguns posed a special danger to public safety.

California and seven other states -- Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York -- have adopted laws similar to the Highland Park ordinance as have several other cities in the Chicago area. The court's decision not to hear the appeal has the effect of upholding the laws in Highland Park and elsewhere.

In the aftermath of the San Bernardino shooting, several California lawmakers have proposed additional restrictions on gun sales to close what they characterize as loopholes in the state's restrictions, which already are among the toughest in the country.

The justices meeting in their private weekly conferences had considered the gun-rights appeal over two months at a time of repeated mass shootings.

Gun control supporters argue that the recent shootings demonstrate the need for tighter controls. Opponents of gun control say, to the contrary, that the shootings demonstrated the limited effectiveness of such measures, since France and California already strictly regulate gun sales.

Because the court decided not to consider the appeal, the justices in the majority did not issue a written opinion. The dissenters in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote to explain why they thought the court should have considered the appeal.

The decision upholds "categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes," they wrote. "If broad bans on firearms can be upheld based on the conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the 2nd Amendment guarantees nothing."

The case began after Highland Park adopted its ban on semiautomatic weapons in 2013. Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Assn. filed suit and contended the measure was unconstitutional. They argued the weapons affected, including the AR-15, were among the most popular guns sold in this country.

"The millions of Americans who use such 'assault weapons' use them for the same lawful purposes as any other type of lawful firearm: hunting, recreational shooting and self-defense," they argued in court papers.

But a federal judge upheld the law. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, did the same in a 2-1 decision in April.

Appeals court Judge Frank Easterbrook said judges should defer to city and state officials who seek to protect the public's safety.

"Assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster and thus can be more dangerous in the aggregate," he said. "Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?"

Friedman filed an appeal with the high court in July, which won the backing of theNational Rifle Assn. and the state attorneys from 23 mostly Republican-led states.

Bans on rapid-fire weapons have been upheld by federal appeals courts in San Francisco and New York in addition to the 7th Circuit panel that upheld the Highland Park ordinance.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center, a gun-control advocacy group, said the court’s decision was a victory for common sense.

"By rejecting this case, the Supreme Court sided with a community that has taken action to protect itself from the type of violence we’ve seen in San Bernardino, on college campuses and in movie theaters. The American people have had enough of gun violence," he said.

But Chuck Michel, a Long Beach lawyer and president of the California Rifle & Pistol Assn., said he still wants to see a formal ruling from the high court on the reach of the 2nd Amendment.

"It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court takes a case, sets things straight, and properly subjects this and similar unconstitutional laws to renewed challenge,” Michel said.

[JPR1959]

This is an example of a New York AR.  I don't know all of the restrictions, but some are pretty obvious.

 

[Moped]

This is an example of a New York AR.  I don't know all of the restrictions, but some are pretty obvious.

 

 

I'd say those are outlawed in the next 6 months, thanks to SCOTUS.

[Oh Shoot]

I'd say those are outlawed in the next 6 months, thanks to SCOTUS.

 

They would have outlawed them to begin with if they could have foreseen what custom gunsmiths could come up with to get around the statute wording.

 

- OS

[Moped]

It was always easy to get around the limits before, but now they will just ban all semi-autos. That will just leave revolvers, bolt actions, pumps and single shots.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

It was always easy to get around the limits before, but now they will just ban all semi-autos. That will just leave revolvers, bolt actions, pumps and single shots.

 

Now that, SCOTUS would likely hear.

 

- OS

[JohnC]

It was always easy to get around the limits before, but now they will just ban all semi-autos. That will just leave revolvers, bolt actions, pumps and single shots.
Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

I was on Calguns and they told me to buy an AR Pistol new, it has to be single shot. WTF? If you build one, it can't be from a new stripped lower; has to be 80% and then built in to single shot, etc.

Example:

You pretty much have to start with an 80% lower, build into a single shot, then convert to semi auto with bullet button.

Thanks for letting us live vicariously through you with the awesome builds. You can still build AR pistols it's just a different process. No stripped lowers, so 80% is our only option. You can buy them from some vendors who are manufacturing them in single shot configuration.

Phase 5 Tactical makes a single shot pistol that is sold at some LGS like this one Shooters Warehouse Phase 5 Tactical SSE Pistol. Seeing it in store I was told that it just has a single shot sled.

[Worriedman]

But if i am reading it right their refusal to hear it upholds the lower court's decision that the ban on certain weapons is constitutional. Prepare for a massive legislative wave of places banning them now. Just hope Tennessee doesn't but i bet we will within 10 years.

Remember Robert's statement, paraphrased "you get the government you elect", (re Obamacare)!
If you want different results, elect different legislators.